BVA9507147 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 839     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to postoperative residuals of Fournier's
gangrene, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased disability rating for
degenerative disc disease and spondylosis of the lumber spine,
currently evaluated as 40 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans
Service

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Darryl A. Joe, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had verified active military service from March 1962
to June 1976.  He apparently also served during a previous period
of active duty from August 1952 until an unverified ending date.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a rating decision of November 1991 by the
Atlanta, Georgia Regional Office (RO) of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied increased disability ratings
for the veteran's service-connected postoperative residuals of
Fournier's gangrene and low back disorder.

The veteran appeared and presented testimony at a hearing on
appeal, before a VA hearing officer, in June 1992.  By rating
action in December 1992, the RO established service connection
for atrophy of both testicles, secondary to residuals of
Fournier's gangrene, and assigned a 20 percent rating for that
disability under 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Code 7523 (1993).

REMAND

The disability evaluation currently assigned for the veteran's
service-connected residuals of Fournier's gangrene is based upon
the extent of the resultant scarring.  In reviewing the current
record, the Board finds that the actual extent of the scarring is
somewhat unclear from the various examination reports on file.
In this regard, we note that the June 1991 examination report
describes two areas of scarring over the lower quadrants of the
abdomen near the inguinal folds.  The July 1992 examination
report describes a 17" x 14" x 21" area of scarring crossing the
abdomen diagonally.  However, the report also indicates
significant donor site scarring, and earlier examination reports
note donor site scarring extending into the left thigh.  It thus
appears that there are several areas of scarring involving both
the area originally affected by Fournier's gangrene as well as
one or more donors sites from which skin was taken for engrafting
onto the affected area.  It is not clear that the complete area
or areas of residual scarring attributable to the Fournier's
gangrene has been fully described for the record and considered
in the evaluation of the service-connected disability.

To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the veteran in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the Board finds that
additional examination should be undertaken to evaluate the
veteran's service-connected disabilities.  Accordingly, the case
is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions:

1.  The veteran should be given the
opportunity to identify any recent medical
treatment, VA or private, for the service-
connected disabilities at issue.  If such
treatment is identified, appropriate action
should be taken to obtain pertinent
records.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a
special VA dermatology or surgical
examination for the purpose of evaluating
the nature and extent of the residual
scarring attributable to his service-
connected Fournier's gangrene.  The full
extent of the area(s) of scarring including
any areas of related donor site scarring
should be completely described, along with
all clinical manifestations.  Measurements
of the size of the area or areas of
scarring should be recorded as precisely as
possible, and should include an assessment
of the area of the scarring in square
inches.  The claims folder should be made
available to the examiner for review before
the examination.

3.  The veteran should also be afforded a
VA orthopedic examination to evaluate the
current status of his service-connected
degenerative disc disease and spondylosis
of the lumbar spine.  All indicated special
studies or tests should be performed.  The
claims folder should be made available to
the examiner for review prior to the
examination.

4.  After the development requested above
has been completed, the RO should again
review the record.  If the determination
regarding either issue is adverse to the
veteran, he and his representative should
be furnished a supplemental statement of
the case and given the opportunity to
respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The veteran need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          D. C. SPICKLER
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___
(1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be
assigned to an individual member of the Board for a
determination.  This proceeding has been assigned to an
individual member of the Board.

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals.  This remand is in the nature of a
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board
on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).